The team with the 2nd highest payroll in the AL won the World Series? Shocking!
...

Is it more shocking that the team with the highest payroll didn't make the postseason. Is it more shocking that the elite payroll with which the Red Sox began last season bought them a last-place finish?

I've read sources that place this year's White Sox payroll ahead of the Cardinals', both of which were behind the Phillies and Giants, teams with losing records.

Is it more shocking that the team with the highest payroll didn't make the postseason. Is it more shocking that the elite payroll with which the Red Sox began last season bought them a last-place finish?

I've read sources that place this year's White Sox payroll ahead of the Cardinals', both of which were behind the Phillies and Giants, teams with losing records.

Ah, the old argument that, unless the Yankees and Red Sox never ever ever....ever! have one bad season, there is no merit to pointing out the correlation between their sky-high payroll and their nearly annual playoff appearances. Sorry, I think pointing to the 2012 Red Sox or 2013 Yankees as great examples of the hardships these teams can endure is simply misleading.

Yes, there are definitely bad 2013 teams with high payroll and bad/expensive contracts to be found on that list. The Phillies are way up there. That'll always be the case. Still doesn't mean we can't call a spade a spade when it comes to the perpetual success of ESPN's favorite teams.

Ah, the old argument that, unless the Yankees and Red Sox never ever ever....ever! have one bad season, there is no merit to pointing out the correlation between their sky-high payroll and their nearly annual playoff appearances. Sorry, I think pointing to the 2012 Red Sox or 2013 Yankees as great examples of the hardships these teams can endure is simply misleading.

Yes, there are definitely bad 2013 teams with high payroll and bad/expensive contracts to be found on that list. The Phillies are way up there. That'll always be the case. Still doesn't mean we can't call a spade a spade when it comes to the perpetual success of ESPN's favorite teams.

I haven't watched ESPN in years, so I don't know if or why that would even be relevant. And I don't believe people pointing to the 2012 Red Sox or the 2013 Angels, for that matter or numerous other teams in numerous other years are at all misleading.

I just don't believe payroll is as big an issue as some insist on making it out to be.

...This is the 8th World Series title for Boston. They're only one behind the A's now on the all-time list.

It may have been brought up already in this thread, but is anyone else getting sick of hearing about how "this is the first World Series Boston has won AT HOME since 1918," as if that's some kind of monumental accomplishment? Are they trying to divert our attention from the fact that this "star-crossed" team and their "long-suffering" fans have now won three titles in ten years? Shut up, already.

It may have been brought up already in this thread, but is anyone else getting sick of hearing about how "this is the first World Series Boston has won AT HOME since 1918," as if that's some kind of monumental accomplishment? Are they trying to divert our attention from the fact that this "star-crossed" team and their "long-suffering" fans have now won three titles in ten years? Shut up, already.

The White Sox haven't won a World Series at home since 1906. The road in that series was Chicago as well so winning on the road wouldn't have been such a big deal. The other two championships were achieved in New York and Houston. The Cubs fans consider themselves soul mates with the Red Sox fans (note, though, that the Red Sox are the most successful AL team of the beginning of this century just as they were the most successful AL team for the first two decades of the last), And the Cubs have never won the World Series at home. Oddly enough, the Cubs have only won World Series championships in Detroit.

I know White Sox fans are frustrated, at least for as long as I've been alive, but I can't imagine fans would be making a big deal about 1906 if they were on the verge of winning the World Series at home. Maybe that's because 190-whatever is more of a Cubs thing.

But maybe if this winning-at-home thing catches on, the Cubs can be considered to have never won the World Series in any significant way and their fans have justification to pretend 2005 never happened. One can only imagine the parade if it ever happens for the Cubs, as long as it doesn't happen insignificantly in Houston.